Barca PSG

[Yampy]

Well you've managed to use an incredible strawman argument and simultaneously clearly missed the part where I'm not suggesting getting rid of the comms. Referees and AR's in the PL currently manage to agree on the decision before flags/arms go up and we even tend to do a decent job of it when I'm on the line and we're relying on eye contact and small gestures down by our sides. I don't see why 3 people discussing it, the referee making a final decision and then all 3 flagging is likely to be that much trickier than the current situation where 2 people are doing it in every match with comms in the world?

What I really want is the AAR's round the other side of the goal so that they actually offer a different viewpoint and have clearly distinct areas of responsibility from the AR. But that seems to be even less likely for some reason, so I'm compromising by suggesting they should actually be allowed to contribute in a visible way. That doesn't seem so strange to me....

The AAR is positioned where they are because it fits in with the general patrol path of the referee. No point in having a referee and an AAR looking from the same side of the FOP with similar angles and both wondering what is going on a the other side of the penalty area.

 

[GraemeS]

The AAR is positioned where they are because it fits in with the general patrol path of the referee. No point in having a referee and an AAR looking from the same side of the FOP with similar angles and both wondering what is going on a the other side of the penalty area.

But as it is, the AAR is looking from pretty much the same angle as the AR anyway - certainly an AR who has cause to go down to the goal line has a more similar angle to an assistant behind the goal than a referee should ever have. And the referee can change his patrol path to give a third angle but the AR can't because his job is to run a line.

 

[A Freethinker]

Well you've managed to use an incredible strawman argument and simultaneously clearly missed the part where I'm not suggesting getting rid of the comms. Referees and AR's in the PL currently manage to agree on the decision before flags/arms go up and we even tend to do a decent job of it when I'm on the line and we're relying on eye contact and small gestures down by our sides. I don't see why 3 people discussing it, the referee making a final decision and then all 3 flagging is likely to be that much trickier than the current situation where 2 people are doing it in every match with comms in the world?

What I really want is the AAR's round the other side of the goal so that they actually offer a different viewpoint and have clearly distinct areas of responsibility from the AR. But that seems to be even less likely for some reason, so I'm compromising by suggesting they should actually be allowed to contribute in a visible way. That doesn't seem so strange to me....

Oh right a strawman argument because I don't agree that an all flagging parade is the way to go..forgive me father for I have sinned

As stated they do have clear signals which they do and just because you don't see doesn't mean they don't happen...just because they don't wave a flag or blow a whistle doesn't mean the subtle signals they give aren't effective when they clearly work, so why change them? Sadly your argument/want for the AAR on the other side means the referee running a different diagonal and is the reason they are placed where they are to allow the AR and AAR to carry out their duties...i.e. AR runs the line AAR does the penalty area and bye line end of discussion.

So tell what are your proposed AAR duties, signals etc

 

[A Freethinker]

But as it is, the AAR is looking from pretty much the same angle as the AR anyway - certainly an AR who has cause to go down to the goal line has a more similar angle to an assistant behind the goal than a referee should ever have. And the referee can change his patrol path to give a third angle but the AR can't because his job is to run a line.

The AR is standing 20-30 yards looking sideways on the AAR is standing 0-18 yards away facing it directly and you say they are pretty much the same OMDG yeah that's right that's why UEFA decided lets stick another person in their but they see the same as the AR

 

[GraemeS]

The AR is standing 20-30 yards looking sideways on the AAR is standing 0-18 yards away facing it directly and you say they are pretty much the same OMDG yeah that's right that's why UEFA decided lets stick another person in their but they see the same as the AR

If an AR can't see from that angle, he needs his eyes tested. The ref is still responsible for central incidents and 20 yard vision should be fairly straightforward for a top official. Regardless, you still open up more angles by having the AAR on the other side - 3 points of a triangle, as we're all taught in teams of 3 if a mass con happens.

 

[GraemeS]

Oh right a strawman argument because I don't agree that an all flagging parade is the way to go..forgive me father for I have sinned

As stated they do have clear signals which they do and just because you don't see doesn't mean they don't happen...just because they don't wave a flag or blow a whistle doesn't mean the subtle signals they give aren't effective when they clearly work, so why change them? Sadly your argument/want for the AAR on the other side means the referee running a different diagonal and is the reason they are placed where they are to allow the AR and AAR to carry out their duties...i.e. AR runs the line AAR does the penalty area and bye line end of discussion.

So tell what are your proposed AAR duties, signals etc

The strawman argument would the the one where you presumed how I thought it would work and then proceeded to dismiss that imaginary setup. Plus, you've now sidetracked us onto an entirely separate discussion.

The only adjustment needed with the AAR over the other side would be the referee could shorten his patrol path as he wouldn't be required to go as deep to get a side on view of incidents in the area as that would be covered by the AAR. This also has the added benefit of leaving him better positioned to keep up with play in the case of a quick counter and free to move more central in the area to get a view of balls lifted into the box from out wide or stay closer to the wide play and trust the AAR if the ball gets quickly put in the middle, whichever approach they prefer.

The AAR on this other side would also be able to monitor corner and goal kick placement on the opposite side to the AR. And again, is an ENTIRELY different angle for PA incidents to both the referee and AR, instead of only being slightly different to the AR as they are now. Flag signals are obvious, same as used by an AR and again, decisions confirmed on comms before anyone goes flagging away.

 

[Yampy]

But as it is, the AAR is looking from pretty much the same angle as the AR anyway - certainly an AR who has cause to go down to the goal line has a more similar angle to an assistant behind the goal than a referee should ever have. And the referee can change his patrol path to give a third angle but the AR can't because his job is to run a line.

With an AAR, the ARs job is simplified. Concentrate on the offside, that's your most important task along with telling the ref if the ball goes out of play along the touchline.

 

[A Freethinker]

The strawman argument would the the one where you presumed how I thought it would work and then proceeded to dismiss that imaginary setup. Plus, you've now sidetracked us onto an entirely separate discussion.

The only adjustment needed with the AAR over the other side would be the referee could shorten his patrol path as he wouldn't be required to go as deep to get a side on view of incidents in the area as that would be covered by the AAR. This also has the added benefit of leaving him better positioned to keep up with play in the case of a quick counter and free to move more central in the area to get a view of balls lifted into the box from out wide or stay closer to the wide play and trust the AAR if the ball gets quickly put in the middle, whichever approach they prefer.

The AAR on this other side would also be able to monitor corner and goal kick placement on the opposite side to the AR. And again, is an ENTIRELY different angle for PA incidents to both the referee and AR, instead of only being slightly different to the AR as they are now. Flag signals are obvious, same as used by an AR and again, decisions confirmed on comms before anyone goes flagging away.

Ok Graeme you know best the law makers have got it wrong, because they never considered your proposals, I mean all that experience and years of refereeing and consultation torn apart by your argument? You de man!

 

[GraemeS]

Ok Graeme you know best the law makers have got it wrong, because they never considered your proposals, I mean all that experience and years of refereeing and consultation torn apart by your argument? You de man!

Well that's not necessary is it?

You weren't on this forum when the new laws came out were you? There was lots (And I mean LOTS) of debate about if they were good changes or not and some of the changes were pretty roundly criticised on here. Including the fact that IFAB clearly hadn't thought of what would happen if an offside player became "active" in their own half. But you're suggesting IFAB and FIFA are infallible and exempt from criticism on this particular topic for some reason?

I'm just saying that I think there are flaws in the way AAR's have been implemented and the incident raised in this thread is a good example of why them not making publicly viewable signals is problematic. When specifically asked to by you, I elaborated on how else I think they could be improved. You're the one that asked me to write the post you've replied to here, it seems pretty unfair to then criticise me for daring to do so!

 

[GraemeS]

With an AAR, the ARs job is simplified. Concentrate on the offside, that's your most important task along with telling the ref if the ball goes out of play along the touchline.

Offside decision accuracy in the PL is pretty high - and wrong decisions are far more likely to be a result of the visual lag effect (I forgot the actual name, sorry) or obstructed view than distraction. Experienced AR's know when to focus on the line and when that's not necessary.

AAR's on the same side as the AR is solving a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

[Yampy]

Just write your thesis and send it to IFAB. I'm on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" side of this argument. AAR are a good solution IMO and until a solution which benefits the game is introduced, I'm with it. We're truly knackered if the game panders to the average punter and their credibility ratings.

 

[ASM]

AARs are on the same side as the assistant because that is where the referees at that level have expressly asked for them to be positioned.

When initially introduced, they were on the opposite side and referees were instructed to adjust their position so as to avoid the scenario of them and the AAR being relatively closely positioned on one side of the penalty area leaving a far larger area under the one vantage point if the AR.

This was found to be difficult given it is counter the the years of practice in positioning and movement that referees will have had in reaching that level.

It's very easy to sit and preach about things from behind a keyboard but the matter is that very few, if any, of us experience of working in a team of 5 where there will be a continual stream of communication and information between the officials.

Having had the benefit, and privilege, of being high enough in the game to use comms kits in every game I can tell you it fundamentally changes the interaction of the match officials for the better.

Expand that further to AARs, and speaking to colleagues who have officiated these games, the communication involved in the team is a massively valuable tool to the referee on the day.

The role and positioning of AARs is as it is simply because those at that level want them to be that way and IFAB have been happy to listen and act accordingly.

 

[JamesL]

Not sure we can draw comparison with AR and AAR in terms of responsibility. The main reason is based on positioning they will only be involved with KMIs which from a referees perspective you only want credible support on and support which does not undermine your match control.
What are you saying/being told in pre matches about penalty decisions?
1.im giving it. 2 im not. Dont want any input unless I have dropped a massive ball. 3 im looking at you and i want a some help. Same applies but like I say its a dedinite KMI every time.
What I wouldnt want is an over zealous AAR waving a flag about the penalty area when im shouting no penalty. Paticularly not when I have a direct link communication with him and he can speak to me if required.
The main purpose of AAR is goal no goal. This is suported in LOTG as its the only signal afforded to an AAR.

 

[RustyRef]

Shifting the AARs from one side to the other had to happen. The way it was before you had both referee and AAR on the same side and that was crazy. As it is now you do have three completely different angles - assistant looking across the penalty area, AAR looking into the penalty area towards the edge of it, and referee looking towards the goal.

Let's be clear here, the flag or lack of a flag is irrelevant. With the comms system assistant referees will rarely, if ever, flag for a penalty without first telling the referee they are going to do it. If he screams back at them no, no, no, or don't you dare, that flag will not go up. If they do give the penalty they will then flag, and they need to as they will almost always be much closer to the incident than the referee.

AARs are different. The referee will usually be a similar distance away from the incident as the referee is, and the thing here is the different angles that they both have. Again though, they will be talking, and if the AAR had a flag he wouldn't be putting it up before first discussing it with the referee. The big difference here is credibility, if the AAR flags (if he had one) when the referee was closer it would look silly, so better to just do it over the comms.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

FFS, move on!!!!

 

[GraemeS]

Shifting the AARs from one side to the other had to happen. The way it was before you had both referee and AAR on the same side and that was crazy. As it is now you do have three completely different angles - assistant looking across the penalty area, AAR looking into the penalty area towards the edge of it, and referee looking towards the goal.

I obviously need to watch more top level football, because the angles involved in this particular argument are really, genuinely confusing me.

Let's hypothetically put the AAR is on the opposite side to the AR - aka, the opposite side to how it is currently done. If an incident occurs in the left hand side of the PA as viewed by the attacking team, where are you assuming the referee will be? I'm working on the assumption that the optimum position (with or without AARs) will be somewhere around the edge of the PA and somewhere left of centre. If this is the case you would often find that the AR is both unsighted and a long way away, but an AAR on this side would have a view almost perfectly 180 degrees different to that of the referee. That seems different enough that it adds value to the situation.

Unless the referee is going far far deeper into the PA that most I've ever noticed, he's going to have a very different view of any penalty/no penalty decision to the AAR on the goal line, looking from the opposite side. And even if referees do go a long way into the box, it's a fairly minor adjustment to their patrol path to tell them to end their runs a little shallower than normal and be more prepared in case of a counter as a result. I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel in terms of referee patrol paths.

And in the case of an incident on the right side of the PA, you've then got 3 officials looking at ~120 degree different angles - even if one of them has their view blocked, you're still adding more chance of a second viewpoint being clear.

As it is, if an incident occurs on the left side of the PA, the AAR in their current position could very easily be just as unsighted as the AR, leaving the decision entirely up the the referee. Meaning the AAR could often add nothing.

 

[RustyRef]

I obviously need to watch more top level football, because the angles involved in this particular argument are really, genuinely confusing me.

Let's hypothetically put the AAR is on the opposite side to the AR - aka, the opposite side to how it is currently done. If an incident occurs in the left hand side of the PA as viewed by the attacking team, where are you assuming the referee will be? I'm working on the assumption that the optimum position (with or without AARs) will be somewhere around the edge of the PA and somewhere left of centre. If this is the case you would often find that the AR is both unsighted and a long way away, but an AAR on this side would have a view almost perfectly 180 degrees different to that of the referee. That seems different enough that it adds value to the situation.

Unless the referee is going far far deeper into the PA that most I've ever noticed, he's going to have a very different view of any penalty/no penalty decision to the AAR on the goal line, looking from the opposite side. And even if referees do go a long way into the box, it's a fairly minor adjustment to their patrol path to tell them to end their runs a little shallower than normal and be more prepared in case of a counter as a result. I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel in terms of referee patrol paths.

And in the case of an incident on the right side of the PA, you've then got 3 officials looking at ~120 degree different angles - even if one of them has their view blocked, you're still adding more chance of a second viewpoint being clear.

As it is, if an incident occurs on the left side of the PA, the AAR in their current position could very easily be just as unsighted as the AR, leaving the decision entirely up the the referee. Meaning the AAR could often add nothing.

Also remember though the levels of the officials. With the old system you had two top level FIFA referees on the same side of the penalty area, so if anything happened on the other side who it would be left mainly to the assistant. Who may not ever referee games if he is a specialist assistant, and if a referee could be as low as level 3 using the FA system levels.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I obviously need to watch more top level football, because the angles involved in this particular argument are really, genuinely confusing me.

I've got a better idea. Go watch football at a level or two above the level at which you operate. Watch those match officials, see what they do. The chances are that you will have more chance of making the 1% changes to your game to bring your game closer to that level. Once that is achieved, watch a level of two above again. Repeat this process over and over making 1% changes and you'll be more successful. Forget the tv crew, they operate in a completely different game to yours and some of their practices are frowned upon at your level and a few levels above, e.g. the flashed yellow card. It's not just some observer's pet hate, it's now enshrined in the performance criteria from 4 to 2b.

 

[A Freethinker]

Well that's not necessary is it?

You weren't on this forum when the new laws came out were you? There was lots (And I mean LOTS) of debate about if they were good changes or not and some of the changes were pretty roundly criticised on here. Including the fact that IFAB clearly hadn't thought of what would happen if an offside player became "active" in their own half. But you're suggesting IFAB and FIFA are infallible and exempt from criticism on this particular topic for some reason?

I'm just saying that I think there are flaws in the way AAR's have been implemented and the incident raised in this thread is a good example of why them not making publicly viewable signals is problematic. When specifically asked to by you, I elaborated on how else I think they could be improved. You're the one that asked me to write the post you've replied to here, it seems pretty unfair to then criticise me for daring to do so!

I was a referee then and long before it came in, I saw the advantages and the improvements, I listened to the debates and arguments for them and against them, I read about the trials which occurred and the success of them, let's not forget these AARs are there to help referees in difficult situations. Whether you understand how they work or not they are part of the game and work! Listen to anyone who has worked with them just because they aren't waving flags or jumping up and down waving their hands in the air doesn't mean the subtle signals they give aren't appreciated.

As for infallibility, wise up I suggest that what they have don here through trial and error is the best option maybe not perfect but it works they tried your way it DIDN'T work end of debate. Maybe when you get to the level you need to understand them and their operation within the game you will see how well the system works?